Spirituality
07 Nov 12
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidThat olive branch was not intended for you, you festering pile of conservative scum!
I'm going to try to remember that you said that. In the future when you say something I disagree with, I won't be quick to challenge you because it is clear from your post here, that you are sensible, and sensitive to what is fair and just.
I really appreciate you saying that, rwingett. These kinds of statements really take the "sting" out of our conver ...[text shortened]... . I was seriously losing hope of any constructive exchange in these forums. Thanks.
+1
But please carry on with more constructive exchanges 😉
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are correct in all these things. But therein lieth the problem.
Nonsense. Science is not a religion nor does it 'lead' people toward any moral direction. Nor is science an alternative to religion.
Indeed, science does not lead toward any moral direction. But since science has kicked the legs from beneath religion (which occasionally did lead people in a moral direction), we are left increasingly with an amoral society. Now, I am not in any way claiming that religion and morality are synonymous. Not at all. People are perfectly capable of forming moral concepts without the aid of religion. But since science is NOT an alternative to religion, instead of replacing religious moral instruction with it's own, it has simply left a void. Moral instruction is left to be picked up secondhand, like high school kids learning about sex without a program of sex education.
So what is the upshot of that? We are producing a society of technocrats who are concerned solely with the efficiency of their technical processes, without any consideration for the morality underlining them. We have devised vast, technical processes for managing society smoothly and efficiently, with what seems to be a callous disregard for the individual people who actually make up that system. They are no longer thought of a "people" at all, but as units of information to be managed - as impersonally, efficiently and amorally as possible. Only in this way can you devise social systems that are as efficient as they are amoral (and immoral), brimming, as they are, with growing levels of inequality, alienation and ecological devastation.
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by rwingettHmmm, your post is truly food for thought. I'll ruminate on this and see what I come up with.
I use the term 'progressive' because 'liberal' doesn't mean quite the same thing everywhere as it does here. Depending on how the term is used it can mean something quite different from how Americans typically use it. Progressive is a less ambiguous term.
Plus (for me anyway), 'liberal' conjures up images of establishment candidates, like Walter Mondale ...[text shortened]... sure which ones you're talking about, but I think Thom Hartmann is one of the best.
As far as progressive radio, I was speaking of people like Tom Leykis. I've stayed away from progressive talk-radio ever since. I don't think he's on the air anymore though, so I'll take a listen to this Thom Hartmann you mention. That is, if he's even broadcasting on a station I can pick up here. I'm in Phoenix, the conservative wasteland, so picking up any progressive radio is a hit-and-miss affair here. Maybe I can find him on the internet.
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidWhen I think conservative Christians, I think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Robinson and others. Our own RJH tends to often fall into this category.
I'm a Conservative Christian, and I sure hope you don't think I give Christians a bad name. We have our differences politically but when it comes to our spiritual beliefs--and I think that's what really counts--I think we are about 99% in agreement.
I celebrate our similarities as well as our differences. Christianity would have a much worse reputation if we were all the same... we'd be like robots under mind control, lol.
I do not tend to put you in this category, even though your views are decidedly conservative, and you are a Christian. I believe you render more than lip service to your Christianity, which I think kind of pulls you out of the group I'm talking about.
I agree that our differences add spice to the mix, however I consider conservatism to be dangerous, especially to the less fortunate ones among us. And that doesn't lend itself to Christian values in my mind.
I look at conservatives like the atheists here look at Christians: dangerous, pompous and self-centered. Like the atheists, my feelings may be entirely subjective and personally without merit or cause, but I cannot help that my initial feelings towards someone when they say they're conservative are not exactly beneficent.
If you weren't so entirely Christian, I'd suspect you of being evil. 🙂
Originally posted by SuzianneLiberalism to me has gained a bad name and even many Liberals have changed their identity by calling themselves Progessive. The liberals want the freedon to do as they choose. They want to be able to get high on drug and alcohol and still drive a motor vehicle and claim it is not their fault if someone gets killed in the process. They want the freedom of choice to have sex without being married and then have other tax payers pay to support their children or they want to discard their unborn babies like trash, if they decide it is more convenient than giving birth. They are full of excuses for why they can not or should not work to make a living unlike those that hold conservative views. They constantly expect the goverment to tax those that have made a successful life for themselves to give money to them.
When I think conservative Christians, I think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Robinson and others. Our own RJH tends to often fall into this category.
I do not tend to put you in this category, even though your views are decidedly conservative, and you are a Christian. I believe you render more than lip service to your Christianity, which I think k tly beneficent.
If you weren't so entirely Christian, I'd suspect you of being evil. 🙂
The excuse many give for violating the laws are that they are poor or of a minority race and have no other choice. Most other Liberals are quick to agree and support them.
Most liberals in politics believe that increasing taxes on those providing jobs and spending more money on social programs to provide for the welfare of those that refuse to work is a sure road to winning elections. I could go on and on.
We should have no poor at all if everyone could borrow and print what money they needed to provide for their needs and wants, like the Federal government does and the Liberals endorse as the best way to get out of debt. Many liberal even believe it is stupid for the goverment officials to want to get out of debt. They may be right if more people come to believe that way, since the conservative politician that wants to pay off the debt will find it harder and harder to get elected to an office.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by SuzianneDidn't Pat Robertson run for President a few decades ago? Can you *imagine* ??? That would have been instant civil war.
When I think conservative Christians, I think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Robinson and others. Our own RJH tends to often fall into this category.
I do not tend to put you in this category, even though your views are decidedly conservative, and you are a Christian. I believe you render more than lip service to your Christianity, which I think k ...[text shortened]... tly beneficent.
If you weren't so entirely Christian, I'd suspect you of being evil. 🙂
I'm socially conservative but not completely. I don't have any real problem with people doing drugs, and I completely agree with helping the poor. Although I do believe that a number of the poor are people capable but unwilling to work, it boils down to a judgment call and to be safe, all poor people should be helped. And that means given a roof over their head, food to eat, healthcare, and the ability to learn a marketable skill.
Where I'm socially conservative deals mostly with abortion and partly with "traditional family values." I strongly believe that the traditional family unit is a necessary building block to a successful, flourising society. I am very strongly anti-abortion and feel so strongly about it that over that issue alone, I would make my decision on who should be President.
On the other hand, I break away from typical social Conservative Christians in that I do *not* believe homosexuality is a choice. That's not to say some professed homosexuals didn't *choose* that lifestyle, but, I think it's quite obviously genetic in nature, for the vast majority in the homosexual community. That means they didn't ask for it, but they got it. Not their fault and they shouldn't be punished for it. I get all that. But I do not believe the homosexual lifestyle should be promoted and encouraged. In fact, we (the government and public education systems) should simply leave sexuality out of it altogether and let the families and individuals sort it out. Government intervention in sexuality is just... wrong.
"But what about the defense of marriage act?" I dunno... ask yer buddy Clinton. 😉
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by rwingettYou left out "steaming." When I picture a festering pile of Conservative scum, I see steam coming off of it... not unlike the steam rising from a fresh dog-pile in the dew-covered grass on a cold Winter's morning.
That olive branch was not intended for you, you festering pile of conservative scum!
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsHey, Ron, be sure to say Hi to Rush for me, ok? Oh, and tell him his fairy tales are getting really, really old.
Liberalism to me has gained a bad name and even many Liberals have changed their identity by calling themselves Progessive. The liberals want the freedon to do as they choose. They want to be able to get high on drug and alcohol and still drive a motor vehicle and claim it is not their fault if someone gets killed in the process. They want the freedom of ...[text shortened]... ician that wants to pay off the debt will find it harder and harder to get elected to an office.
12 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidYou are too hard on yourself sumydid, try to think more positively!
You left out "steaming." When I picture a festering pile of Conservative scum, I see steam coming off of it... not unlike the steam rising from a fresh dog-pile in the dew-covered grass on a cold Winter's morning.
You are a cold, festering pile of Conservative scum 🙂
12 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergOh, that's bad. I hadn't even considered it.
You are too hard on yourself sumydid, try to think more positively!
You are a cold, festering pile of Conservative scum 🙂
I've got to go now... I need to sort some things out and consider whether or not to go on living.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidIn the interest of constructive exchange, I will concede that you have a good point. "Steaming" it shall be.
You left out "steaming." When I picture a festering pile of Conservative scum, I see steam coming off of it... not unlike the steam rising from a fresh dog-pile in the dew-covered grass on a cold Winter's morning.
Originally posted by rwingettI dispute that in its entirety. It is education (of which science is only a part) and wealth that have kicked the legs from beneath religion. I dispute though that we have an increasing amoral society. If anything I think the evidence is absolutely clear that society is more moral than at any time in history. We have some of the lowest crime rates in history, the fewest war casualties, we have abolished slavery, feudalism, we are working on dealing with racism, the death penalty, dictatorship etc. And all these progressions have been resisted by religion not encouraged by it.
But since science has kicked the legs from beneath religion (which occasionally did lead people in a moral direction), we are left increasingly with an amoral society.
But since science is NOT an alternative to religion, instead of replacing religious moral instruction with it's own, it has simply left a void.
And I say this is in no way the fault of science nor should science have even come into the conversation. I notice you don't blame Mathematics for this lack of moral instruction. Why not? Mathematics is as much a part of modern education as science.
Moral instruction is left to be picked up secondhand, like high school kids learning about sex without a program of sex education.
Yet interestingly enough, religion frowns on sex education - yet we have it despite the resistance from religion.
So what is the upshot of that? We are producing a society of technocrats who are concerned solely with the efficiency of their technical processes, without any consideration for the morality underlining them.
Now you are talking about government - which if anything has, got a lot more moral than when the Church ran governments - and to this day, the secular governments are more moral than those based on religions (such as Islaam). Officials in religious govenments make decisions not based on morals, but based on whether they think it is according to their religious teachings (often very immoral teachings), whether they think it will promote their religion, and of course, as is common amongst all all governments, whether they think it will benefit themselves.
We have devised vast, technical processes for managing society smoothly and efficiently, with what seems to be a callous disregard for the individual people who actually make up that system.
And I disagree. I am very much in favour of efficiency precisely because it benefits the people.
They are no longer thought of a "people" at all, but as units of information to be managed - as impersonally, efficiently and amorally as possible.
What gives you this idea? Who is this who no-longer thinks of them as people? You do realise that under the old religious governments of the past most people were seen as cannon fodder? Sent into religious wars without a second thought?
Only in this way can you devise social systems that are as efficient as they are amoral (and immoral), brimming, as they are, with growing levels of inequality, alienation and ecological devastation.
As much as we have inequality, it is nothing compared to the systems in the past.
I think you need to realise that some of the communal societies you so admire are in the US precisely because they were running away from the religious governments of Europe to a more secular society.